Clearly the parent does not believe in property rights when they believe unskilled non-differentiated labor should be rewarded with above market rates by force and at the expense of Walmart's shareholders.
That individuals believe government should be directed at investors who risk their property to create wealth in order to take by force that property to redistribute it is perhaps the most offensive sentiment.
> There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just a legal arrangement. And there is no reason why the Walton family should continue to be allowed to use offshore corporations to loan themselves money to run all their WalMart stores - that is just a legal arrangement which allows them to avoid taxes and hide their billions offshore
I can think of about a million sentiments more offensive than the idea that people who invest should be taxed and that we should have a social safety net.
Ha, there aren't a million other sentiments in the grandparent comment.
No one is arguing the value of the social safety net. The comment goes above and beyond the safety net suggesting it shouldn't be needed and the remedy is redistribution. A safety net is one thing but arbitrarily inflating wages is another.
I don't believe the suggested remedy would be proposed by someone who believes in property rights. Further, as a person who believes in property rights I do find the sentiment of theft of property for redistribution offensive.
I am opposed to social wealth re-distribution or the idea that one should not be able to filthy rich. However we need to make sure that balance of level playing field is maintained (for example, education and healthcare remains affordable for all), political power doesn't get bought up by few and necessities such as real estate doesn't become investment tool to artificially constraint supply and inflate prices.
Not quite the same sentiment and you have mis-attributed the quote.
If a violent revolution comes, I'd be thinking more about those pervasive comments touting a belief that theft of private property is somehow justified. I'd suspect those making such comments would be a little more regretful to see their rhetoric fulfilled.
That individuals believe government should be directed at investors who risk their property to create wealth in order to take by force that property to redistribute it is perhaps the most offensive sentiment.
> There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just a legal arrangement. And there is no reason why the Walton family should continue to be allowed to use offshore corporations to loan themselves money to run all their WalMart stores - that is just a legal arrangement which allows them to avoid taxes and hide their billions offshore